Workforce Development is More Than Just Training

“Why should I train employees for my competitors? They’ll just leave after I invest in their training. I’m smarter than that: I focus on hiring people who are already trained for what we need!”

I am sure my jaw hit the table when I heard that executive’s view of training during a break at a Chamber of Commerce meeting. How could he NOT do everything possible to maintain his biggest asset (and expense) – his workforce and their payroll?

I will admit it was very tempting to ask, “What happens if you don’t train them and they stay? Then what will you have?”

But, before I could say anything, he went on to top himself when a manager sitting next to him asked, “But as fast as technology and knowledge is changing, how do they keep up if you don’t train them?”

“I don’t worry about it. I pay them to stay productive. If they want to keep their jobs by being productive, it’s their responsibility to stay current!”

Unfortunately, his attitude of ‘why-train-them-for-my-competitors’ is fairly common when training is viewed as a unique event that disrupts productivity.

That is why workforce development means so much more than just training. ‘Developing the employee’ means that you are going beyond teaching job skills. You are also developing character, emphasizing values, and shaping attitudes about how they view themselves, their employer, their peers, and their future.

If an employer wisely spends money on maintaining equipment, software, buildings, and customer base to protect their investment in those costly categories, why not also invest (not ‘spend’) in maintaining the expensive workforce that is the source of their corporate income?

The old Army recruiting slogan, “Be All You Can Be” was an earlier way of describing workforce development. It is all about encouraging employees to expand their career horizons. It is saying, “Now that we have taught you how to do the basic job, we want you to figure out how do it more efficiently and increase your value to the company.”

‘Workforce development’ in its best sense means:

  • We conduct needs assessments to develop our training curriculum so the employees always support the business mission.
  • We do not conduct a training class if there is not a clear and distinct link to a business reason to do it.
  • We do not conduct training classes without having specific, behavioral, or objective outcomes defined first.
  • We have low tolerance for supervisors who discourage employees from attending valuable training classes.
  • We have taught our leaders how to reinforce the skills taught in any of our courses.
  • We view our training function as a valued business partner, not as a cost center.
  • Before sending employees to a class, we require leaders to tell us first how they will work with the employee to reinforce the application of it AFTER the training event because we know that training without reinforcement is a waste of resources.
  • Before sending employees to a class, we require leaders to review the learning outcomes most associated with the employee’s job, meet with the employee to be sure they learn them, and schedule a post-class opportunity for the employee to share those learning points with other employees in a departmental learning moment. This provides added value to the supervisor for the training.
  • Every department has an orientation and training program that insures new hires (or transfers) become as productive as quickly as possible. It isn’t the same program for all departments but one that is tailored to their unique functions within the organization.
  • Each employee can explain the difference between being ‘productive’ and simply ‘busy.’
  • We have a program to develop leadership skills in our current supervisors and managers as well as a program to identify and develop future leaders.
  • We know how to measure and manage performance in all job function so employees are assured that their work products are measurable and they are fairly compensated.
  • We know how to develop and apply fair and measurable methods for determining “soft skills” performance such as communication, teamwork, and customer service.
  • We have skilled employees sharing their knowledge with peers so that every employee becomes a trainer to some extent.
  • We have a ‘measurement culture’ that is so focused on performance skills that diversity-related issues almost never come up.
  • We teach employees to examine their work processes for opportunities to reduce cycle time, waste, or inefficiency.
  • Each employee can explain how his/her job supports the mission of the employer.
  • We have a performance assessment process that managers use as a tool to manage performance and employees see as a means of managing their self-development.
  • Employees are self-directed because their leaders have done an excellent job of communicating expectations and there are processes to provide performance feedback.
  • Tardiness, absenteeism, and turnover are very low because employees fell they “get to go to work”, not “have to go to work.”.
  • Employees at all levels see real opportunities for self-fulfillment.
  • We teach fundamentals of project management to line employees to teach “big picture’ thinking, process improvement fundamentals, and begin the development of future work leaders.
  • Our employees would be pleased to tell friends about job openings in our organization they could fill.
  • We teach the lowest level of supervisors how to collect and use historic data for measuring production capacity and forecasting potentials for staffing and productivity.
  • We teach the lowest level of supervisors how to collect data to prepare a budget and monitor their group’s expenses.
  • We teach our leaders at all levels how to lead a multi-generational workforce
  • We help our workforce expand their range of skills to broaden their career opportunities instead of just focusing on “moving up”

There are probably many more activities we could add to what “workforce development” means but I am sure you get the sense of how it is so much more than just a training event.

I doubt that executive at the Chamber’s meeting will ever change and I also doubt whether he will be an executive much longer. That kind of thinking drives employees away and creates high (and expensive) turnover ratios. I can visualize him being shown the door muttering how you just can’t find good help any more!

The Juniorization of the American Workforce

A friend of mine, Tom recently commented on this obvious trend. At 51 years of age, Tom works as an IT (1099 form) consultant for a medical tech start-up. Tom shared recently that he had just come back from a reunion with his friends from high school. Many of those Tom referenced had been in leadership positions in large companies, and had followed long and distinguished career paths to attain their career objectives. So, Tom saw it as more than a coincidence that the only individuals currently employed among his friends were those who were self employed / owned their own businesses. All of the individuals in Tom’s group who had risen through the ranks of corporate America were currently “displaced due to circumstances.” It doesn’t take a lot of looking around to see this phenomena infiltrating the lives of an entire generation.

The contemporary application of the noun “juniorization” references the “elephant in the room.” It’s the now common practice of “displacing” senior employees who “don’t have as much runway left.” This is HR speak for an illegal practice engaging in age discrimination through a strategic deployment of rationalized hirings, forced retirements, displacements, and firings.

The fact that there haven’t (yet) been a rash of age discrimination suits, doesn’t mean that the problem hasn’t reached a crisis state. It only means that these illegal practices are difficult to prove. Exiting employees are extorted with severance packages that have been significantly vetted in terms of fiscal financial savings for the company. Either you sign, agree to keep your mouth shut, and accept what you’re being offered, or you take the boot, and face a long and expensive litigation process.

Even as you read this article; HR teams are working feverishly to provide proof that they aren’t employing juniorization practices. They will publish lists of displaced employees that illustrate the age diversity of the individuals who are about to join the ranks of the unemployed. Although, there’s a pretty good chance that the company will turn around and rehire younger staffers in newly defined positions, or replace the displaced senior staff with “more economically favorable” options including outside “1099 form consultants,” and less experienced, and cheaper employees.

Hiring Managers are strongly discouraged against hiring teams of older individuals – even when the senior employee candidate has a particularly advantageous history as a leader, or as an innovator.

There is no denying that senior employees may not be as technically up-to-date as their rising-young-star counterparts. But, that’s not an acceptable (or legal) reason to put them out to pasture. They still have a lot to offer in terms of historical knowledge*, and leadership** (more on that in a minute).

An interesting analogy can be drawn from the definition of juniorization provided on the web site ‘BrickWiki which is a wiki intended to cover all aspects of what is coming to be known as the LEGO hobby. ‘BrickWiki defines juniorization as:

“A term used by Adult Fans of LEGO [AFOLs) to both describe and criticize the inclusion of a few highly specialized elements in sets instead of already existing elements that could be assembled into the same configuration. A BURP (Big Ugly Rock Piece) might be considered a juniorized element but it is more common to refer to pieces such as which is simply an element that reproduces five of stacked together.”

The ‘BrickWiki continues: “The major complaint is that the use of juniorized pieces reduces the possibilities to build alternate models, a cornerstone of AFOL activity.”

So, as the Lego analogy portrays: companies are dismissing senior employees who have finely honed, specialty skill sets, and replacing them with cheaper, younger employees who have less evolved, but more diverse skills. As analogized in the Lego world, the employment of the less specialized, less senior employees will eventually result in long term organizational shortfalls in flexibility, and adaptability.

*Historical knowledge is something in which those employing juniorization processes are placing no value. They are willing to forfeit years of experience for short term savings.

“We learn from history that we do not learn from history.”

• Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.

“Those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it.”

• Edmund Burke

**Leadership isn’t a talent that can be taught in grad school. It is an acquired skill set. And, guess what. Not everyone has the propensity for leadership, That’s why it takes years and years to vet good leaders. So, throwing less experienced employees into the management pool to see who sinks, isn’t the best leadership development process. It will result in the loss of valuable talent through burn out and frustration.

The term juniorization is not a new one. In an October 2004 article in the Columbia Journalism Review (“Letter From Johannesburg: The Trouble with Transformation” by Douglas Foster in Cape Town, S. Africa) the term was credited to the online source: Double-Tongued Dictionary as:

“n.- The survey spawned a terrible new word: juniorization. It covers a multitude of sins. When more experienced reporters left the profession because they were traumatized by covering the political violence that swept the country in the 1980s, or crime or AIDS in the 1990s; when talented reporters get snatched up at double their salaries by government or corporations as spinmeisters; when someone gets promoted beyond his abilities, and even when a reporter gets a story wrong, “juniorization” is the one-size-fits-all label used to shame newsroom denizens without mentioning explicitly that most of the “juniors” are black.”

So, the term juniorization has long held a negative connotation. But, the contemporary issue at hand is threatening an aging populace that is already struggling to set retirement plans with no promise of social security subsidies.

A recent blog entry on theSkimm defined the term Juniorization as: “The term for why your office happy hours keep getting rowdier. It’s when a company fires older employees to replace them with younger ones. Because 40 is the new 30 is the new 25. Is the new not so legal.”

In theSkimm ‘s coverage, they referenced an article from Business Insider entitled Wall Street is gripped by something called ‘juniorization,’ and it is freaking some people out in which the practice of firing senior traders and salespeople and replacing them with younger talent was cited as a major cause for concern. But, this trend which has been recognized in the financial services world, is not confined to that sector.

None of this is meant to put the full blame for these juniorization practices on the Human Relations professionals. Obviously, these directives are coming from a higher level. But, the level of complicity being exercised by the HR folks is amazing. They are smiling in the employees’ faces and kicking them in the ass on the way out the door.

The days of working for one corporation for your entire career are at the endangered level on the extinction scale. But, don’t show me a rat and call it a puppy. You might be “just following orders,” (think war crime trials) but don’t tell us that you’re making fair and non-discriminatory business decisions. Because we’re just not that stupid.

Exit mobile version